>> Because the embracing of the continual injustice is so interesting, especially your rationalization.
>
> Punishing felons is an injustice in your eyes? Care to rephrase, or are you good with that?
To continue punishment after the sentence is served is immoral and unjust. — In this particular instance, what you claim as “part of the sentence” is not, but is instead additional punishment added on by the legislature, which you have agreed is violative of the Constitution.
> You might not like the punishment that is being given out, but its quite Constitutional to punish felons with the loss of their freedom, all, most, or some. The duration is up to the people.
Not if the duration set in place impacts those already convicted: for then you are altering their sentence — or are you going to argue for a Bill of Attainder next?
Part of the sentence of any felon includes a lifetime restriction on firearms. That is the sentence, as codified in the law. Its not after their sentence, it is the punishment so laid out in the law for a felony offense. You don't have to like it, but its the law of the land and at least since 1968 not ex post facto.
Not if the duration set in place impacts those already convicted: for then you are altering their sentence — or are you going to argue for a Bill of Attainder next?
Already addressed pre-1968, next.